Menu

Tea Party Racists

Amid recent allegations of tea partiers caught rubbing elbows with white supremacists and cock fighters, mainstream Republicans are having a hard time containing their exuberance over the struggling tea party challenger campaigns.

After TPM reported on Thursday that state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-MS) backed out of headlining a gun rights rally thanks to attention on a vendor with questionable views on racial segregation, CNN Crossfire co-host S.E. Cupp tweeted McDaniel was an “ass” for agreeing to attend in the first place.

“When you lie down with dogs, you get fleas,” Republican strategist John Feehery told TPM in an email. “This is the problem with the tea party and their candidates. They lack judgement and that lack of judgement makes them poor general election candidates.” The National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC), which has done some of the most heated battling with the outside groups that support McDaniel, quickly took to twitter to attack McDaniel over the episode.

Mississippi Republican Party chair Joe Nosef urged McDaniel to clarify whether he supports groups that promote the confederacy and segregation.

“Running for the United States Senate is a very important thing and as a party we need to always be careful and focused and serious about what our views are and what our interests are,” Nosef said according to MSNBC on Thursday.

Brian Walsh, a former NRSC communications director and vocal critic of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said that McDaniel’s decision to pull out of the event when he did didn’t “smell right.”

“It just doesn’t necessarily smell right that he disavowed it after it became public,” Walsh told TPM. “These are the sorts of issues that Democrats would have a field day in the general election. And it’s the type of thing that cost us winnable seats in the last couple of cycles.”

McDaniel wasn’t the only tea party candidate who goofed recently. Over the weekend Matt Bevin, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) tea party primary challenger, ended up speaking at a rally for supporters of legal cockfighting. Bevin said he didn’t know the rally was about cockfighting but both McConnell campaign staffers and other prominent Republicans are skeptical.

For the first time, America’s racial and ethnic minorities now make up about half of the under-5 age group, the government said Thursday. It’s a historic shift that shows how young people are at the forefront of sweeping changes by race and class.

The new census estimates, a snapshot of the U.S. population as of July 2012, comes a year after the Census Bureau reported that whites had fallen to a minority among babies. Fueled by immigration and high rates of birth, particularly among Hispanics, racial and ethnic minorities are now growing more rapidly in numbers than whites.

Based on current rates of growth, whites in the under-5 group are expected to tip to a minority this year or next, Thomas Mesenbourg, the Census Bureau’s acting director, said.

The government also projects that in five years, minorities will make up more than half of children under 18. Not long after, the total U.S. white population will begin an inexorable decline in absolute numbers, due to aging baby boomers.

Will numbers of this sort bring conservatives and Republicans to their senses and finally have them embrace comprehensive immigration reform? No, of course not. Teahadists will only dig their heels in and increase the decibel level of their screeching and opposition to any commonsense reform.

As we’ve come to learn, these sad little people don’t react well to numbers that don’t match up to their preconceived notion of reality.

I’m not sure what Mike Huckabee’s personal motives are, but in general it’s easy to see that the GOP is listening to their pollsters who say that 51% of voting Republicans believe that Barack Obama was not born in this country.

Essentially one can deduce that the Republican party has now embraced “birtherism”.

Mike Huckabee supposedly “misspoke” when he said Barack Obama grew up in Kenya. The potential 2012 candidate and other Obama bashers need to accept that the president was born in the U.S. and is Christian—and try to beat him with ideas, argues Mark McKinnon.

Mike Huckabee has really stepped in it. I only wish I could believe it was entirely accidental. But, boy, there sure is a lot on his shoes. People like Mike Huckabee. I like Mike Huckabee. Or, I did anyway. But just because he can be charming and self-effacing doesn’t mean we should excuse him from appropriate standards of conduct and character assassination.

Huckabee said in an interview this week that President Obama grew up in Kenya. His spokesman tried to mop up by suggesting he misspoke and meant to say he grew up in Indonesia, which in itself is a vast overstatement and misleading. The problem is that Huckabee talked in the same breath about the Mau Mau Revolution, which happened in Kenya.

Here’s what I think. I doubt most Americans have a clue about the Mau Mau Revolution, including me. But, I’m pretty sure for most folks it sounds like something extremely foreign, vaguely socialist, anti-Christian or at the very least un-American. And unfortunately, whether it was overt or not, I think that Huckabee’s intent was to further sow the seeds that Obama is somehow “not really one of us…he’s one of them.” Take your pick and use your imagination about who “them” might be. Continue reading…

This is absolutely absurd. Instead of checking out Rep. Ellison’s record, the teabaggers are once again playing the Islamaphobia card. Ellison is an excellent politician and represents his district well.

The fringe tea party group Tea Party Nation sent out an email to its supporters over the weekend urging them to support Republican House candidate Lynne Torgerson against Rep. Keith Ellison (D) in Minnesota’s 5th District. The Maddow show blog points out that one of the arguments that Tea Party Nation makes against Ellison is that he’s a Muslim:

There are a lot of liberals who need to be retired this year, but there are few I can think of more deserving than Keith Ellison. Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped congress send millions of tax to terrorists in Gaza.

Aside from the fact that the email provides no evidence that Ellison supports terrorists, Ellison isn’t the only Muslim member of Congress. Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) is also Muslim. Salon noted that, according to an NAACP report on tea parties, the Tea Party Nation is the third largest tea party network. Many Tea Party activists widely criticized the group’s founder, Tennessee lawyer Judson Phillips, earlier this year for trying to profit off a Tea Party convention.

The following article is provocative and informative. It’s a very long article but I’ve only inserted the relevant parts as it applies to the title of this post. I recommend that everyone read this article over at truthdig from beginning to end:

A debate has raged over the last 18 months as to whether the tea party movement is racist. Never mind that the inauguration of the first black president in January 2009 was followed in February by the first of the tea party “moments”—when CNBC’s Rick Santelli called for a Chicago tea party on national television from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Never mind that April 15 of 2009 saw the first nationally organized protest of the tea partyers in cities across the country. When the summer of 2009 arrived, all tea party guns (some real firearms were openly carried at Obama events) turned on President Barack Obama and his health insurance reform proposals. Obama was demonized with invective that included being called Hitler, Stalin and the Antichrist.

[…] The tea party is racist. Its followers have deployed a brilliant strategy to deflect charges of racism by using a form of the legislative provision known as severability. Whenever a tea party group or person is “caught” with a racist sign, or saying explicitly racist comments, they simply “sever” that person from the movement by saying, “That person does not represent the tea party.” They get away with it because they claim the status of a “movement” with no structure, leadership or cohesive identity except allegiance to the three magic phrases: “Constitutional Republic,” “Founding Fathers” and “I want my country back!”

I submit that their defense, while clever, is inadequate. Racism virtually drips from their lips when they spew out their ridicule of President Obama. It lies just underneath the surface of all the signs imaging him as a native African, a Muslim or an animal. But, one might note, they never called Obama by a racial slur. They have never said they don’t like him because he is black. Well, they don’t have to say it—he is black. And to say, “I don’t like [black] Obama because he is black” would be redundant.

[…]

However, I will make my argument for their fundamentally racist opposition to Obama and their racist opposition to any and every government program that they perceive to be taking their hard-earned tax dollars and redistributing them to people of color. This racism is at the core of their opposition to health care reform that would subsidize premiums for people who cannot afford them or educational or tax credits to low-income persons and families or any of the myriad social programs meant to strengthen the general welfare of the nation. In their opinion, these monies are going to noncitizens who do not deserve the benefits and blessings of their dear USA, USA, USA.

I stumbled across my evidence through an e-mail alert I received for tea party “meet-ups” near where I live. When I noticed a tea party meet-up in south Orange County [Calif.] being held at a church, I couldn’t resist taking a closer look. Five clicks later I was enthralled by a document that I found both horrifying and revealing. The document was titled “The Non-Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment” and written by A.H. Ellett, a retired Utah Supreme Court justice. Ironically, the tea party movement generally “supports with worshipful intensity the constitution of the United States,” according to historian Mark Lilla, but when its followers say “Constitution” they don’t mean the same U.S. Constitution that you and I mean. The recent issue for the tea party has been the repeal of the 14th Amendment. But repeal is just one small step compared to the giant leap that Justice Ellett makes in claiming that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments (the so-called Reconstruction Amendments) were never legally (i.e. constitutionally) ratified in the first place. When the tea party folk say that they want their country back, I’m starting to understand just how far back they want it—back before the Civil War!

The goal of this retrogression is revealed in Ellett’s opening paragraph of his arguments specifically against the fact of the ratification of the 14th Amendment. He writes:

The validity, or should we say invalidity, of the Civil War Amendments is very important to reinstating the inalienable rights of free white Citizens in the United States of America. At every juncture where the government of the United States of America and/or the governments of the several States attempt to usurp inalienable rights, the Civil War Amendments are ultimately claimed to be the authority for such deprivations of rights.

His 200-page treatise is filled with sophist (not sophisticated) argument that hinges on whether the authors of the 14th Amendment used uppercase or lowercase when conferring C/citizenship and P/personhood on the newly freed slaves. He also warns the contemporary reader that his citations may make some uncomfortable but they are necessary to the truth of his argument. He warns and then continues:

Please remember that the following Authorities reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution for the United States was adopted, and although they may not be “politically” correct today, the Authorities represents the law at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was (purportedly) adopted.

This is further clarified in Amy v. Smith: /60

“Free negroes and mulattoes are, almost everywhere, considered and treated as a degraded race of people; insomuch so, that, under the constitution and laws of the United States, they can not become citizens of the United States.”

Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. Ky. R. 334.

In light of this, no person would be considered as a United States Citizen or a citizen of the United States; as the Constitution was framed to incorporate the common law, in opposition to international law.

· common law—one race governs;

· international law—all races govern.

The capitalization of the words “Person” and “Citizen” could mean only one thing, the denoting of only those of one race in compliance with the common law.

“According to the common law principle (upon which our Constitution was founded), only the race (family) of people forming the sovereignty to adopt the Constitution (We the People) are considered “Citizens.” All others born inside the Country and owing allegiance to “We the People” are natural born “Subjects.” Under principles of International Law, that is, inter-racial law (See definition in Webster’s Dictionary, [1828]), these “Subjects” (who, by special privilege, are licensed to become something or do something normally illegal under the common-law), are said to be “citizens” and “persons.”

… [B]ut only those of the white race could be recognized as national citizens under the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America and be treated as “Citizens” in any State they entered.

And finally he reaches the ultimate point of it all for the tea party. While party followers might like to disenfranchise all persons of color, they are really after one in particular, President Barack Obama. To wit, Justice Ellett continues:

Thus, only white State citizens held the privileges and immunities known to Article IV, Section 2, among the several States, and no State could confer that Constitutional protection on any other race. In consequence thereof, the “also” could not authorize a “non-white” to be an “Officer” of the United States government.

Thus, according to Justice Ellett, Obama cannot constitutionally be president of the United States.

The only answer I can think of is that our media is run by a few corporations and the tea party is run by lobbyists for corporations. The most prominent tea party corporate backers are Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. Since most corporations and their lobbyists respect the “Corporate culture” I imagine that there is a will full ignorance on the part of the media to be honest about the motives of the current crop of “tea party” candidates.

Why doesn’t the media understand that the Tea Parties are not just about “fiscal responsibility?”

The answer quite obviously is no. Over the past several months, as Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Pat Toomey and other mad-hatters have stumped for office, I have listened and read in disbelief as one after another otherwise respected media representative or outlet continues to suggest that the Tea Party is not interested in “social conservative issues.”

The corporate media–I don’t know whether to describe it as mainstream, midstream or up a creek without a paddle–still persists in mis-reading and misrepresenting the broader context of what is happening in the 2010 elections. (I am not talking about Fox News and other known sources of persistent misinformation). Yes, reporting is done on the extremist positions of individual candidates, but virtually every broader analysis describing the Tea Party “movement,” such as it is, continues to ignore or outright deny the extremist positions take by those candidates as representative of said movement.

Two weeks ago, for example, David Greene, a host on NPR’s All Things Considered interviewed New York Times reporter Kate Zernike, whose new book about the Tea Party, Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America had just been published.

The ad features a trio of “illegal immigrants” looking for a way to cross a chain link fence, as the word “illegal” flashes across the screen in bright red letters. After making previously debunked claims accusing Reid of pushing for “tax breaks” for “illegals,” it goes after Reid’s support of the DREAM Act, which would offer a path to citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States before the age of 16 and who go to college or serve in the military. The ad says Reid wants to give “preferred college tuition rates to none other than illegal aliens,” presumably referring to the fact that it would allow undocumented residents in a given state to qualify for in-state tuition.

Note that, despite the fact that the DREAM Act would specifically apply to undocumented immigrants who had no choice in being here and are diligent, patriotic and Americanized enough to attend college or commit to sacrificing their lives for their adopted country, Angle’s campaign makes them out as smug, intimidating Latino migrants who came here deliberately in order to take advantage.

As Andrea Nill points out, this image is exactly the same one used in a similar ad from Louisiana Senator David Vitter.

Contrast that picture with the happy, smiling, college students in the ad, who, as Eric Kleefield noted, all appear to be white:

The ad’s message is pretty straightforward: Reid wants to take the opportunity for a college education away from white Nevadans, who deserve it, and give it to a bunch of Latino illegal immigrant criminals. Given the current political climate, with most Americans supporting restrictive immigration laws targeted at Latinos like Arizona’s SB 1070, it’s probably to Reid’s advantage to keep focusing on Angle’s extremism rather than attacking her for flagrant race-baiting. But that doesn’t make it any less reprehensible.

The Migration Policy Institute estimates that around 825,000 people would be eligible for the DREAM Act’s provisions. It seems rather obvious that however one feels about amnesty, children should not be held responsible for their parents’ mistakes.

For generations, conservatives have appealed to fear to protect the privileged and preserve the status quo — fear of immigrants, fear of diversity, fear of big government. For conservatives in 2010, it’s easy:

“Stop.”

“No.”

“Repeal.”

Meanwhile, for more than a century — in churches and temples, in union halls and neighborhood centers, in the streets and at the ballot box — progressives have moved the country forward. Progressives brought us minimum wage and Social Security in the 1930s, civil rights and Medicare in the 1960s, and health care and Wall Street reform in 2010

Opponents of these accomplishments — some of society’s most privileged and well-entrenched interest groups — have not changed much. The John Birch Society of 1965 has bequeathed its fervor and extremism to the Tea Party of 2010.

History tells us that rage on the right should not be confused with populism. The far right attacks government regulation as it feeds Wall Street and the insurance companies. It rails against government spending for the least privileged as it lavishes tax cuts favoring the most privileged.

No one should be surprised over what has happened in the last 18 months:

We passed health care reform, so the insurance companies are coming after us at election time.

We enacted consumer protections for homeowners and credit card users, so Wall Street is spending millions to defeat us.

We worked to end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas, and now large multinational corporations are doing everything possible to beat us.

We already know the damage that comes from the right’s rage. During President Clinton‘s eight years, our country added more than 22 million private sector jobs, incomes went up, and we enjoyed the largest budget surplus in U.S. history.

In the following eight years of the Bush administration, only 1 million jobs were added, incomes stagnated or plummeted for most Americans, and we were left with record budget deficits.

Yet Republican candidates in 2010 are offering the same faux populism and “solutions” of the Bush years: more tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of special interests, and trade agreements that cost us millions of manufacturing jobs. And in places like my state of Ohio, they are even offering up as candidates the same people who got us into this mess.

To fight back, progressives must talk about the historic accomplishments of the last 18 months in specific, understandable terms:

We saved the U.S. auto industry in the face of naysayers’ exhortation to “let the market work,” and our efforts preserved hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We passed health care reform that improves drug benefits for senior citizens, provides coverage to those with a pre-existing condition, allows a 22-year-old daughter home from college to stay on her parents’ insurance, and promises health care for millions of Americans.

We made college more affordable for students and passed historic legislation for our nation’s veterans and for equal pay for women.

If you have a 401(k), take a look at it today and compare it with the day before President Obama was inaugurated. Back then, 750,000 jobs were being lost each month, with 22 consecutive months of job loss costing 8 million jobs. We’ve got a long ways to go, but this year we’ve seen eight straight months of private sector job growth.

Is this enough? No, which is why progressives must rally and persevere. Continue reading…